The Muslim Vote-endorsed candidates who scored numbers at the polls say they're just getting started
While the federal election was fought on many fronts including the housing crisis, cost of living and migration, the issue of Gaza loomed large in the two seats, where the highest concentration of Australian Muslims live.
Independents endorsed by The Muslim Vote campaign secured enough of the primary vote to edge out the Liberal candidates and come second in the two-party preferred vote behind Labor frontbenchers Tony Burke and Jason Clare.
The Muslim Vote formed less than two years ago with a mission to unify Australian Muslims as a voting bloc to back independent candidates sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
The Muslim Vote has consistently accused the Labor government of complicity in the destruction of Gaza and attacks on its people.
In Blaxland, independent Ahmed Ouf averaged 20 per cent of the primary vote across the electorate.
ABC analysis of booth data reveals Mr Ouf dominated in suburbs like Guildford and South Granville with almost 46 per cent of first preferences.
In Auburn Central he got as high as 46.6 per cent of the primary vote.
Mr Ouf managed to bite into Education Minister Jason Clare's margin which went from 55 per cent at the 2022 election to about 46.5 per cent last Saturday.
He seems to have also siphoned a similar percentage of primary votes from the Liberal Party, which had just over 27 per cent in 2022 but around 19 per cent this year.
Independent Ziad Basyouny in Watson also chipped away at Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke's primary vote, which was down from 51.9 per cent in 2022 to about 48.5 per cent.
Political scientist and the Centre for Western Sydney executive director Andy Marks said there was "no question" that Gaza and geopolitics played an outsized role in Western Sydney and the vote overall.
"This is the kind of surge you would expect to see over four or five election cycles, typically," Professor Marks said.
"For them to poll so strongly early on, I think says something about the broad base of their appeal."
The Labor Party, Mr Burke and Mr Clare declined to comment.
The Greens also experienced a significant upswing in their Senate votes in those seats.
Voting data shows the Greens more than doubled their Senate vote in Blaxland from 6 per cent in 2022 to about 13.6 per cent this year.
In Watson they rose from 9 per cent to about 14.5 per cent.
NSW senator and Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi credited the improved vote share to Muslim communities backing the party's stance on Gaza.
The International Court of Justice last January ruled Israel must do everything in its power to prevent its troops from committing genocide in Gaza.
Israel rejected the genocide allegations levelled against it, brought to the court by South Africa.
The Palestinian health ministry in Gaza said in March that since October 7, 2023, Israel has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians.
The Israeli government said 1,200 Israelis were killed in an attack by Hamas.
Professor Marks believes the Greens' Senate result is an indicator of how voters in the electorates engage with federal politics.
"I think the fact that the voters were able to discern a role for the Greens, if you like a guardian role for them in the Senate, says that the electorate is pretty sophisticated — they consider those checks and balances very carefully."
The Muslim Vote convener Sheikh Wesam Charkawi said the results send a clear message to Labor.
"These are not passive voters. They're active voters who voted to basically reject their stance on Gaza, Palestine, their weak stance," he said.
Sheikh Wesam said the results in the 2025 election were only the beginning and vowed the community "will no longer accept broken promises".
Professor Marks said the vote share in these electorates signalled there was strong support for both independents should they contest the next election.
"It's a conundrum for Labor and for the Liberals but if you're in office, if you're Labor, you're thinking do I need to co-opt this group? Do I need to align and accept they'll be there much like the Greens are a continual force in that space in the electorate."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Information kept secret, despite senior Tasmanian official questioning why redactions made
A senior Tasmanian department official internally suggested some of the redactions to a Right to Information document did not "stack up", before the document was ultimately sent redacted to the ABC. The ABC had requested department correspondence on the issue of Tasmanian children being kept in watch houses, also known as reception prisons. An "issues register" document detailing staff concerns and Department of Justice responses to those concerns was accidentally sent unredacted to the ABC in July. It was followed minutes later by the properly redacted version, which blacked out most of the 14-page document. Having access to both versions of the same document has allowed the ABC to analyse what was redacted and scrutinise the reasons given for each redaction. The ABC has since used the Right to Information (RTI) process to ask for internal communications on the decision to redact the document. Newly obtained emails show one senior government employee had reservations about the reason for blacking out some of the information in the document, before its release. The director of the Justice Department's Office of the Secretary, which is the office that manages RTI requests, said she was unsure that a legal exemption for personally identifiable information could be used. In an email to the RTI officer, she wrote: "I've just had a look at the proposed redactions and my only additional comment for your consideration is in relation to page 2 and the s36 exemption. Doesn't that require the identity of the person to be ascertainable from the information? If so, I'm not sure the two dot points redacted stack up?" The correspondence in the emails ends there. The ABC has asked what the response was to the email. The two dot points suggested, and ultimately redacted for the reason of personally identifiable information, read: The dot points were examples prison staff gave for why the environment of a watch house may be unsuitable for young people. Section 36 is an exemption under Tasmanian RTI legislation that stops personally identifying information from being made public, as a protective measure. The legislation states: Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this act would involve the disclosure of the personal information of a person other than the person making an application under section 13. It defines personal information as being information in which an individual's identity is "apparent or reasonably ascertainable". Before obtaining these internal emails, the use of section 36 in this watch house document had already been slammed by an RTI expert. Johan Lidberg, an access to information researcher at Monash University, said the raw document, which ABC was sent by mistake, proved there were no names or personally identifying information contained in it, including the two points questioned in this email. The director at the Centre for Public Integrity, Geoffrey Watson SC, also said the law was clear. "Now the law on that is very clear, that there is a presumption in favour of granting access. "If there is a doubt about it, then the documents should be produced." The original decision to redact the dot points stated that: "The personal information of people who have been held at a watch-house in either the Hobart or Launceston Reception prisons is not in the public domain and those persons might suffer discrimination by reason of their having been in these facilities if disclosed." Asked why the redactions were made despite internal uncertainty over them, a Department of Justice spokesperson said responsibility sat with the "RTI delegated officers" who make decisions under the Right to Information Act 2009. "Although the department has in place a quality assurance process relating to RTI applications, which may involve feedback to the delegated officer, under section 50 of the act a delegate must not be unduly influenced in the exercise of the power to make decisions in accordance with the act," the spokesperson said. "As with any quality assurance feedback relating to RTI applications, the delegated officer will note any feedback, whether it be administrative, typographical or interpretive and then confirm and release their decision, in accordance with the act." In the "issues register", prison staff told the Department of Justice that children and young people endure trauma while in adult prison watch-houses, saying they are unable to access basic hygiene, health care or support. Children can also spend days in what is meant to be temporary detention, according to a report by Tasmania's Custodial Inspector. Staff reported "high anxiety levels" and stress, saying they struggled to manage risks to detainees and to themselves. They have urgently requested measures such as body-worn cameras to allay workplace risks — which the department said is expected to be operational by the end of October this year. The department said all staff in reception prisons would be required to activate the cameras for all interactions involving children and young people in watch houses. Watch house cells are where children and adults charged with offences await court appearance, police interview or bail. They are adult custodial facilities meant for temporary detention, and are not child-focused. Children as young as 10 years old can be held in watch houses. Since 2023, the longest period a child or young person was held in a watch-house was four days and seven hours, the Department of Justice disclosed in its response to a previous RTI request. Centre for Public Integrity's Geoffrey Watson said Right to Information systems were "aspirational stuff" and intended to improve society.
SBS Australia
14 minutes ago
- SBS Australia
These protests want to 'take our country back'. But the real issues run much deeper
Groups of Australians are planning to demonstrate on 31 August for the controversial 'March For Australia' protests, which call for an end to what organisers describe as reclamation of Australia's identity and "mass migration". The movement has stirred strong reactions online. Influencer Abbie Chatfield condemned the rallies as "racist", "bigoted", "disgusting" and "terrifying". Supporters argue the protests represent concerns about Australia's future and immigration levels. But experts have warned that the "anti-immigration protests" stem from misinformation and fear, rather than evidence that migrants are responsible for the country's social and economic challenges. What is the 'March for Australia'? On 31 August, six events are being planned across Australia as part of the 'March For Australia' protests. Organisers claim "endless migration, weak leadership and political cowardice" have caused Australia to change "in ways most of us never agreed to". SBS News has contacted the organisers for comment. One flyer read: "It's time to take our country back. It's time to defend our way of life. It's time to defend our culture. Stop mass immigration now." LISTEN TO While details of the protest on the site are minimal, the group has emphasised one rule for the march — "no foreign flags". Instead, they have called for a "sea of red and blue", with Australian ensigns and Eureka flags. It's still unclear who exactly is organising the march, with several groups allegedly attempting to take ownership. The official March for Australia Instagram account, created this week, has distanced itself from extremist figures like Thomas Sewell, the leader of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Network, who allegedly tried to claim the march as his group's event. A March for Australia spokesperson told SBS News "attempts to hijack March For Australia for other issues, or to make it about any one group, are not in the spirit of the movement that we have taken custody of." "Recent claims have been made by various groups attempting to take ownership of March For Australia or attach their own agendas to it. We wish to make it clear: the organisers are not members of, nor acting on behalf of, any other group." Last weekend, Sewell led a group of masked neo-Nazis through Melbourne's CBD just after midnight. "These protests should be condemned by every Australian," Chatfield said in an Instagram reel. Right-wing political commentator Rukshan Fernando was among a number of accounts posting they were "looking forward to marching". Why are these protests happening now? Liz Allen, a demographer at the Australian National University Centre for Social Policy Research, said she is not surprised by the March for Australia protests. "I'm not surprised that people holding such views would mobilise and want to be heard," she told SBS News. "Increasingly, we're seeing Australians fear that they're being left behind and that fear — whether real or simply perceived — is something that we cannot ignore." While anti-immigration sentiment is not new in Australia, Allen said it has evolved. Anti-immigration sentiment is becoming more coordinated and is borrowing international taglines and catchphrases, where Allen says in the past it has been more ad hoc and reactionary. However, she hesitates to say the sentiment is imported. "Australia doesn't need to import racism. Australia has its own homegrown racism," she said. Polling by the Lowy Institute in June 2025 found 53 per cent of Australians think the number of migrants coming into the country each year is "too high", up five points from the previous year. Meanwhile, 38 per cent said immigration levels were "about right", and only 7 per cent thought they were "too low". Compared internationally, Australians appear slightly less anti-immigration than other countries. A 2023 Ipsos survey showed 34 per cent of Australians thought the country would be stronger if immigration stopped, compared with a global average of 43 per cent. But still, half of Australians believed "society is broken" and the "country is in decline". Misinformation and the scapegoating of migrants Central to the rise in anti-immigration sentiment is misinformation that blames migrants for deeper societal problems. Common myths driving anti-immigration sentiment include claims that migrants suppress wages, steal local jobs, or inflate house prices — all of which Allen describes as "nonsense". Professor Daniel Ghezelbash, a scholar of international and comparative refugee and migration law from the University of New South Wales, recommends a "fact sandwich" approach to counter false claims. "When Australia's borders were closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, migration was at its lowest level in a century. Yet, housing prices still went up," Ghezelbash told SBS News. 1. Warn about the myth : "Instead of tackling the real issues, some political actors are just blaming migrants as if they're the reason housing has become unaffordable." 2. Point out the fallacy : "They're oversimplifying the problem to distract you from the actual causes." 3. End with the fact: "There are many factors that are driving Australia's housing crisis. And migration is just one very small piece of the puzzle." But Allen notes there is a large problem in Australia where not everyone is "getting a go", and said this is a sign of a more complex root issue behind anti-immigration sentiment. Four key drivers behind anti-immigration sentiment Allen highlights four major crises fuelling fear and resentment that can manifest as anti-immigration sentiment: housing affordability, climate change, gender inequality and economic insecurity. "These big four come together and create a tipping point that undermines the certainty of tomorrow — and with that comes a great deal of fear," she said. "It's not the fault of migrants, that's not the fault of immigration, but rather a deep-seated fear that someone else is getting or potentially getting an opportunity that you may not have the luxury of obtaining," Allen said. She describes it as "fear of the other", of being "taken over" or "left behind". "That loss of hope means fear can take over, and that's a very powerful emotion at the heart of anti-immigration sentiment," she said. The cost: declining social cohesion The latest survey from the Scanlon Foundation in late 2024 found social cohesion in Australia remains at a record low. Social cohesion is measured by attitudes across five key domains: belonging, worth, social justice, participation and acceptance. While most Australians support non-discriminatory immigration policies, the report found anti-immigration attitudes correlate strongly with economic and housing worries, rather than views on diversity or multiculturalism. It found almost half of Australians (49 per cent) believe immigration levels are too high. LISTEN TO James O'Donnell, the report's author, said economic stress and hardship remain the greatest challenges to social cohesion. "When people are worried about the economy and when they themselves experience unemployment, financial stress, their attitudes towards migration deteriorate," he told SBS News. "They're more likely to say things like, 'migrants increase house prices' or 'they take away jobs'." Allen said the timing of the March for Australia protests is particularly concerning amid already fragile social cohesion in Australia. "It's not a fault of immigration, but rather a number of significant social and economic issues that come together and undermine the potential future of the nation," she said. Allen said the key to countering anti-immigration protests and sentiment lies in restoring hope by addressing the real social and economic problems facing Australia and cutting through misinformation. "The root cause of these issues is fear — and fear is a beast that can quickly corrupt and overtake," she said. "Restoring hope is free of charge. "We can restore hope by tackling the issues that are at the core here: housing, economic security, gender equality, and climate change. "The rest is a distraction."
ABC News
14 minutes ago
- ABC News
Calls for military exports transparency, as government denies Israel arms trade
The federal government has upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel, raising fresh questions about Australia's weapons transfers throughout the war in Gaza. Australia continues to deny that it supplies weapons and ammunition to Israel, saying that has been the case "for at least the past five years". Defence Minister Richard Marles has recently doubled down on denials, adding that any claims of weapons exports were "misinformation". But in responding to a parliamentary question on notice, the Defence Department has acknowledged that after a review, it decided to uphold 35 defence export permits granted prior to October 7, 2023. And after previously stating that the permits related to 'dual-use' items, the new information also reveals that most are listed as specifically for military purposes. Any Australian company wishing to export arms — or military-related goods — must get a permit through the Department of Defence. The permits fall under two categories on the Defence and Strategic Goods List — either military-specific or dual-use items. Dual use items can be for commercial or civilian applications. The system has been criticised by international law experts, human rights campaigners and the Greens for lacking transparency. And there has been growing calls for more information about exactly what each permit covers, and to ensure that exports are not being used to wage war in Gaza. In June 2024, the Defence Department launched a review into the 66 "active" permits approved before the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza, following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas. The review has so far resulted in 16 permits being amended or lapsed, 13 remain under review, while Defence said 35 required "no further action". When the review was announced last year, Mr Marles told the ABC that they had looked at the permits, and would continue to scrutinise the exports, but were "confident that those licences are for what we describe as dual-use technology". The Department of Defence description of the two permit categories: But Defence has recently responded to questions on notice from the Greens, which revealed that 31 of the remaining active permits are on the 'Part 1 — Munitions List'. Part 1 exports are "designed or adapted for use by armed forces" or "inherently lethal", as outlined by the Defence Department. The 13 permits still under review also fall into this category. Only five of 16 of the amended or lapsed permits were classed as "dual-use technology". A question on notice is a written question submitted by a member of parliament to a government minister, often provided after Senate hearings when a more detailed answer is required. Defence Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey told Senate estimates in November that the review was needed to ensure the exports would not be used in contradiction to Australia's "international obligations". He said action was taken on 16 permits — which were not related to weapons or ammunition — because "when there is a conflict, it's more difficult to make those assessments". When quizzed about 'Part 1' permits, Mr Jeffrey said that "they have no other use outside a defence context, but they're not necessarily inherently lethal, in and of themselves". "The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn't equate to the assertion that we're exporting military equipment to Israel," he said. "It could go to, yes, munitions, but it also could go to body armour." He has also said that they could include items such as night-vision goggles. The ABC asked Defence a series of questions, including the process used to review the permits, and how it could be confident they would not be used in breach of international obligations during conflict. Clarification was also sought on whether active permits related to weapons and ammunition, and the status of the 13 permits still under review. The Defence Department has not provided any comments. David Shoebridge, the Greens' Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has been regularly pressing the government for information on its military exports, calling for an end to the two-way arms trade. He said Mr Marles was given the opportunity to set the record straight, and explain why he initially declared that the majority of permits fell into the dual-use category. "The government has chosen to mislead the public and, even when caught out, refused to correct the record," Senator Shoebridge told the ABC. "This awkward mix of misdirection and secrecy is a way for Labor to avoid admitting to the reality of the two-way arms trade with Israel and then having to seriously tackle it." The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among hundreds of civil society organisations urging the government to stop arming Israel "directly and indirectly". It has also launched a landmark legal bid — on behalf of Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza and the West Bank — to determine whether Australian-made weapons and ammunition were being sent to Israeli forces. Lara Khider, the organisation's acting executive director, said requests this year to seek clarification about the review also remained unanswered. "It is unclear what process was undertaken as part of the review and whether this was in accordance with the law," Ms Khider told the ABC. "The lack of transparency in relation to this review and the broader arms exports regime has placed our clients and the broader Australian public completely in the dark about Australian arms exports to Israel." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would formally recognise a Palestinian statehood, saying that "the situation in Gaza had gone beyond the world's worst fears". Over the weekend, Foreign Minister Penny Wong also united with four Western countries to condemn Israel's decision to fully seize Gaza City, saying it would "risk violating international humanitarian law". Germany — which provides about 30 per cent of Israel's arms imports — was quick to take stronger action, suspending defence sales for any weapons that could be used in Gaza "until further notice". But Mr Marles has ruled out following Germany's lead. "The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that," he told the ABC's Insiders program. The ABC reported earlier this year that a remote weapon system designed and built by Australian company Electro Optic Systems was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by the Israel Defense Forces earlier this year. The government has also been questioned about supplying parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in operations in Gaza. Last month, Senator Wong said Australia contributed F-35 "components and parts that are non-lethal in nature". While Mr Marles described the involvement in the fighter jets' supply chain as being "a very different question" to the issue of being an arms exporter. Senator Shoebridge described the government's comments as "excruciating". "International law is crystal clear, parts of weapons are weapons," he said. "I want to be very clear, when the Albanese government says to the Australian public Australia doesn't export weapons to Israel, this is them actively misleading the public." The UN Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, applies to all "conventional arms", including combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, missiles and small to light weapons. It states that control systems must regulate the export of "parts and components" that provides the capability to assemble conventional arms. And that states countries are prohibited from authorising arms transfers where it had knowledge that the arms would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australia had actively spoken in recent weeks about Israel's actions in Gaza being in violation of international law. And that plans to occupy the remaining parts of Gaza should have "further heightened those concerns". "Given the extent of the ongoing Israeli military assault on Gaza and Australia's objections, the Albanese government needs to be confident that any goods exported from Australia to Israel are not contributing to that campaign," Professor Rothwell told the ABC. "This is especially the case given that South Africa has commenced proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and Israel has done little to respect orders issued by the court to modify its military campaign."
